Planning Board – Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 10, 2023 - 6:00 p.m.

Westerly Town Hall | Town Council Chambers

45 Broad Street, Westerly, RI 02891

 

A. CALL TO ORDER –

Mr. Hopkins called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.

 

B. ROLL CALL AND ATTENDANCE

 

Members present:           Chair Justin M. Hopkins, Vice Chair Richard W. Constantine, and Members Andrew Delisio, James Hall IV, and Auxiliary Member Karen Lentz Madison

 

Members absent:             Members Tabitha Harkin and Matthew O’Neill

 

Staff present:                   Assistant Solicitor for Planning & Zoning Atty. Scott Levesque, Town Planner Nancy Letendre, Information Technology Technician Lanny Fuller, and Minute Taker Stephanie J. LaSota

 

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES –

There were no minutes on the agenda.

 

D. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA –

Review, discussion, and possible action by the Planning Board on changes to the agenda, such as known continuances and the order in which items will be heard.

 

            Mr. Hopkins said item F.1 16 Post Road ministorage will not be heard tonight. It will be continued to January 24. He said they will reverse the order of Old Business on the agenda and hear item E.3., E.2., and E.1. Mr. Delisio made a motion to change the agenda as stated by the Chair. Ms. Lentz-Madison seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

E. OLD BUSINESS

 

1. 2022-LMIH-01 Dakota Properties LLC – Comprehensive Permit - Combined Master and Preliminary Plan for Multi-family Residential Development (51 Franklin Street - 111 Wells Street | AP 87, Lots 146 & 147, AP 88, Lots 24 & 25) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on a combined Master Plan amendment and Preliminary Plan review of a Comprehensive Permit for the residential portion of the site plan. 

 

            Ms. Letendre reminded the Board and the public that this is a continuation of the December meeting. Mr. Hopkins asked the applicant to review any updates to the application.

            Attorney Matthew Landry was present for the applicant, Mark Pilotte, of Dakota Partners. He said a supplemental submission was made to the Planning Office, specifically as it relates to site design and landscaping features. The project engineers coordinated with Planning staff to address comments made at the last public hearing by staff and the Board. Two additional exhibits were submitted to the Board; Applicant’s Exhibit 6: a two-page letter of eligibility dated January 9, 2023 from Rhode Island Housing stating they are in conformance with the standards for comprehensive permit projects, and Applicant’s Exhibit 7: a one-page rendering of the plan from Ed Wojcik architect, ltd. Will Walter, professional engineer with Alfred Benesch & Company, explained the changes to the plan. He said on the right side of the entrance drive is a row of evergreens and a screening fence to create a buffer for the neighbors. There is an easement note in the staff memo as a potential condition, but Westerly Land Trust’s (WLT) response is that they are not at liberty to accept wetland buffer as easement, he said.

            Mr. Delisio asked about the second drive’s planning. Mr. Walter said some discussion at the Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting led to a request for a right turn only drive when entering and exiting. He said they felt having the Franklin Street access as a left and right turn would be best to limit congestion at the Wells Street intersection. The Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) will be the deciding factor, Ms. Letendre said, adding that staff suggested it also come back to the Planning Board for final review. Mr. Hall asked for clarification on the discussion with WLT. Ms. Letendre said she spoke with WLT executive director Jennifer Fusco herself and that WLT is unable to conserve the area as they don’t have direct access to it. The item needs further discussion at the final application stage. Mr. Pilotte said they are researching using another part of the parcel as an access area. He said he is expecting that the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) will want them to put additional vegetation in the lot. Mr. Landry submitted a letter from WLT dated January 9, 2023 and it was marked Applicant’s Exhibit 8.

            Scott Collins, of 105 Wells Street, said that behind his property there should be a 30-foot vegetative buffer and there are nine parking spots planned. He pointed out his property on the map. Ms. Letendre said one of the items the applicant is requesting relief from is the buffer zone. Mr. Collins said it puts the burden on him to maintain a buffer and he may want to change the use of his backyard, but the applicant’s plans may infringe upon his right to do so. He also suggested the applicant not cut down old specimen trees. He questioned how many school children will live in the development and how the project will impact school taxes. Mr. Collins expressed concern with the driveway location and ongoing issues with queue waits at the Wells Street intersection. He warned the public that similar projects could be planned in the future in other neighborhoods so the whole Town should be concerned even if they don’t live there. Mr. Collins felt the plan was unfolding too rapidly and that the developers will not be the people living in the project and are not using neighborly etiquette. He asked the Board to act neighborly in consideration of this development.

Anthony Inzero, of 91 Wells Street, reminded everyone that 114 parking spots will bring more traffic than residents are accustomed to and traffic is already a challenge. He said resident homeowners have an expectation for the neighborhood and a two or three-story development detracts from their lifestyles. He said traffic is a top concern, especially for school and ambulance services.

Christopher Lawlor, of 8 Bucks Trail, referenced the traffic summary. He said the Wells and Franklin Street intersection is notorious for traffic and for cut-through drivers. It is highly traveled because of the hospital and the State Street School. He expressed concern with crossing opposite lanes to turn and suggested a possible special lane for drivers turning into the development. He added that 114 spaces on the site do not seem to account for visitors. He commented that data clarified 20 cars per hour leaving and entering the site. Mr. Lawlor was unsure that planned precautionary signs of “do not block the driveway” will be acknowledged by drivers. He believed the project will adversely impact the traffic to the area.

Paula Ruisi, of 3 Shepherds Run, said that the Town is severely overdeveloped. She referenced developments on East Avenue, Elm Street, Wells Street,  and Shore Road and said the Town cannot handle the traffic and police are not curtailing the speeding issue. She said Westerly does not have the infrastructure to support so much development and the police presence is not sufficient so it must stop. Ms. Ruisi believed that the public has not had a sufficient opportunity to express concerns and provide input to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. She claimed the Planning Office was encouraging the use of form-based code, which supports things like Airbnb homes. She said the Planning Board should listen to the public as they are the tax payers and that over-development has become dangerous for the roadways.

Paul Azzinaro, a local architect and member of Westerly’s ARB, spoke as a Westerly citizen and as a family member of the property owners at 51 Franklin Street and gave a brief history of the property. He said there are good projects they have been seeing lately and junk that has come to the Town. He commended this applicant for the details put into the project and the professional team that created it. He said the developer is notable for his work on the east coast and this project is for affordable housing in the truest sense. Mr. Azzinaro said that the project is consistent with the intent of the Westerly Comprehensive Plan and the Route 1 Corridor Plan.

Mr. Delisio said the project is not perfect and he is personally familiar with the area from dealing with it for 25 years. He said the Town does need housing and this parcel is away from the road, and near the hospital and shopping, which is a benefit for future residents. Mr. Constantine is concerned about the lack of a buffer zone and asked if the applicant could redesign it to accommodate more space. Atty. Landry said they are asking for relief from two parking spaces from what is required and there are many wetland and development constraints. He said the intensity of the use of the property has already been scaled back. Mr. Walter noted that the extensive wetland system is a challenge to the project. He said stormwater management areas are scattered throughout the site and it affects the location of parking. Mr. Hall said the neighbor does have a right to expect a 30-foot buffer and asked that the two work together to come up with a solution. Mr. Hall responded to Ms. Ruisi’s claims that the public was pushed out of the Comprehensive Plan process, saying that staff and the Planning Board worked hard on the plan during public meetings, including specific public workshops. He invited anyone interested in volunteering on the Board to be more involved and see the democratic process at work. Ms. Lentz-Madison shared the same concern about a lost buffer area and hopes the applicant will work with the neighbors on a solution. Mr. Hopkins responded to Mr. Collins’ comments on a potential increase in school taxes because of developments, saying it is not accurate to say that each child will cost “x amount” of money to the taxpayers. He added that he is pleased there is secondary access planned for the site.

Atty. Landry responded to public and Board commentary, noting that the project is an amended master plan from a previous more intense use. He said these types of projects are expensive and the economics are important. The units will be advertised at 30 to 40 percent area median income (AMI), he said, and are important to Westerly’s goal to achieve State-mandated affordable housing rates. Atty. Landry reminded the Board that the State legislature amended its view on Comprehensive Permits and asked Towns to encourage them for affordable housing initiatives. Mr. Pilotte commented that his daughter, who works as a nurse, is currently experiencing the hardship of finding affordable housing in their town so it is an issue all over the State. He said he did have a conversation with Mr. Collins at a past event and he did increase the originally planned buffer to 15-feet, added a fence, and added trees. He agrees that balance in the plan is needed and that is why he had community outreach events to hear from others. Mr. Pilotte said he does take offense to the claim that he will develop the property and then leave. He said the project must be regulated and managed for 30 years.

Mr. Pilotte said traffic will exist in the area with or without the project and he does not have an answer, but traffic concerns are part of a bigger picture, and this seems to be something that will be further addressed in the Route 1 Corridor Plan and through RIDOT. Mr. Pilotte said 114 parking spaces were planned based on other projects completed but the Zoning Officer’s opinion was that 116 would be required. He said he could revisit Mr. Constantine’s request to possibly relocate some spaces, but he is not sure where they could be placed. Mr. Constantine said he would be willing to support the project given the applicant further investigated how to provide a consistent 30-foot buffer.

Ms. Letendre said during the Route 1 Corridor study it was concluded that traffic in the corridor is a problem due to many factors and the Town is planning on addressing this, along with RIDOT. She said page 16 of the memo should include a revision to number 2 that Dakota Partners and WLT shall enter into an agreement limited to providing permanent access to the adjacent WLT property and Dakota shall pursue permanent conservation of the wetlands and wetland buffer prior to final plan.  She said also in number 2, Dakota shall revisit the parking plan to attempt to relocate 13 parking spaces adjacent to 105 Wells Street in favor of a wider landscape buffer and present those results at the time of final plan review. There was some discussion on the language to the condition. It was amended to include that there be a good faith attempt to find common ground with abutters affected by the relief request.

Mr. Delisio made a motion that the Westerly Planning Board approve with conditions 2022-LMIH-01 Dakota Properties LLC – Comprehensive Permit - Combined Master and Preliminary Plan for Multi-family Residential Development (51 Franklin Street - 111 Wells Street | AP 87, Lots 146 & 147, AP 88, Lots 24 & 25) as written in the draft motion included in the staff memo and including the two conditions as amended during the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Constantine seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

The Board took a recess at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:35 p.m.

 

2. 2021-LMIH-01: Multi-Family Development for Former St. Pius X Property Comprehensive Permit - Master Plan (32 Elm Street | Assessor’s Map 6, Lot 91) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on request for Master Plan Approval of a Major Land Development for proposed multifamily development at former St. Pius X property.

 

            Mr. Hopkins asked Atty. Levesque to review the standards for comprehensive permit review. Atty. Levesque said this process applies to any project that offers at least 25 percent low and moderate income (LMI) housing. It is a single review process through which all relief is sought from the Planning Board. There is a statutory requirement that once the application is certified complete the Board has 90 days to render a decision unless the applicant agrees to an extension. He elaborated on the criteria the Board may use to analyze the project.  

            Present on behalf of the application was attorney William Nardone, engineer Sergio Cherenzia, architect Peter Springsteel, and landscape architect Rebecca Nolan, along with the applicant, Jeffrey Pucci. Mr. Cherenzia introduced a packet of information including plans, a cover memo dated January 5, 2023 and a chart, and it was marked Applicant’s Exhibit 5. Mr. Cherenzia, principal of Cherenzia & Associates, Ltd., 99 Mechanic Street, Pawcatuck, Connecticut, explained that Exhibit 5 addresses concerns of the Planning Office and he read the list of six comments. He shared an image of the site plan, showing the requested right of way reconstruction. He said they will have to disturb the sidewalk on School Street but will repair and improve it. Mr. Cherenzia described a site visit of the property with the Town Engineer Kyle Zalaski and Assistant Director of Public Works Max Sposato. He said the applicant will need to excavate and determine the location of any potential underground culverts. He provided an email exchange between he and Mr. Zalaski marked as Applicant’s Exhibit 6. He described what work may need to be completed. It was previously referenced that an abutter on Chestnut Street experienced flooding, and Mr. Cherenzia said that Mr. Zalaski confirmed that was an autonomous drainage system there and he does not believe that any drainage from their site will affect Chestnut Street. He continued to review the comments in Exhibit 5 on the traffic and parking analysis and the details of development phasing.

Ms. Nolan described revisions to the landscape plan, including a planned dumpster location, bike racks, and a buffered transformer. Plant material and trees were added and noted. She said they met with community members and expressed willingness to work with them and some had concerns about vegetation, sidewalks, and pedestrian connectivity. She planned for male only Ginkgo Trees to avoid flowering, for example. Mr. Cherenzia said they are working together on green stormwater infrastructure and a snow operation and maintenance plan will be in place so snow will be removed to an appropriate location to be stored or treated properly. He said the applicant reduced the impervious surface as much as possible. Mr. Delisio questioned if Ms. Nolan’s plan really included a “large” green space. She said they were able to create green space because the building is pushed back from the road, and it is more space than what many other development projects have. She added that there are 15 trees to be planted that now do not exist on the site. Mr. Delisio commented that the plan could have had much more green space if the parcel were not subdivided and sold. Mr. O’Neil joined the meeting at 8:16 p.m. Mr. Hall said he appreciated the challenges of the project and the goal to maintain 44 units but would not compare this project to others to justify the amount of green space. 

            Mr. Springsteel addressed notes in comment six of Exhibit 5. He said when they analyzed the cost of adding four units to the existing building versus the new building it was not as cost effective and the units in the new building will be more accessible as there will be an elevator. He said that new mechanicals will be placed at the rear of the building. Mr. Constantine said he still finds the notched roof unattractive and would prefer a variance be requested so they can raise the roofline to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. O’Neil asked about mechanical units and Mr. Springsteel replied that split ductless units get hung onto brackets on the building above the sidewalk area. Ms. Letendre shared concerns about how decks will be usable with condensers on them and concerns of units over the sidewalk. Mr. Springsteel said that units will be on the first floor and screened. The design includes covered patios built into the architecture and the top floor patios are open on top. A small tube carried down to grade will transfer condensation. Mr. Hopkins was interested in seeing the cost analysis comparing adding units to the existing building versus adding units to the new building. Atty. Nardone said with respect to the question of the 44 units, the developer submitted a letter and is present to answer any questions. He said the original magic number was between 60 and 65 units. There was discussion on reducing the impervious surface area and the engineering will dictate whether this site can support the size of the project. Mr. Cherenzia said they know there is water running under the site, but it can be properly engineered. Atty. Nardone said both the planning consultant and traffic engineer will be present at the January 24 meeting if the application is continued. The decision deadline will need to be extended to February 21 if the public hearing is completed on January 24 and the applicant agrees to an extension. Mr. Hall asked if anyone besides Mr. Cherenzia would speak so that the Board is aware of other needed professionals. Mr. Cherenzia responded that they will do the initial research and bring in another consultant if necessary. Ms. Letendre said the staff is prepared to make a recommendation on the conditions of approval, which will allow for more confidence in the outcome of reengineering that needs to be done. Mr. Cherenzia said this site will require additional geotechnical borings to ensure that the structure is steady and that is the architect’s purview. He said if the site cannot support the stormwater plan, they would need to reduce the impervious area, which may include roof and building area.

            There was further discussion on the roof design. Ms. Letendre said a height variance could be requested at the preliminary plan phase, as well, but there is a requirement to return to the ARB. The ARB’s original recommendation was entered into the record dated November 9, 2022 and marked as Board’s Exhibit 1.

            Doug Brockway, of 32 Chestnut Street, spoke as an abutter to the project. He said Mr. Zalaski returned end of last week to examine a manhole cover. He recounted a time when he had 18 inches of water in his basement, and it was not something local project engineers anticipated happening either. He referenced Mr. Cherenzia’s first site plan and expressed concerns about the lack of information on water drainage and stormwater control. He submitted his public comments dated January 10, 2023 for the record, and it was marked Remonstrance C. A previously submitted document he referenced, titled “Traffic Challenges and Concerns Due to St. Pius Scale” was marked Remonstrance D. Mr. Brockway elaborated on Remonstrance D. Remonstrance C urged the Board to insist on more reliable information from the applicant. He said the comprehensive permit allows the Board to hire independent experts at the applicant’s expense to review issues such as traffic. He said the existing traffic study is not reliable.

            Ed Marolda, of 40 Elm Street, spoke on behalf of the group Elm Street CARES. He said it is a cohesive and interactive neighborhood group. He acknowledged the Board’s careful consideration of the project. He said local politics can feel rough and tumble and earlier comments made about Ms. Letendre by a member of the public were unfair and even if they do not agree all the time, she has been a dedicated public servant. He said he has not heard one comment on the overall building mass and size. The group has written two technical letters about the size. The applicant did decrease the height but did not change the basic footprint. Mr. Marolda said that since the beginning the project’s density has been defined and justified by the Windsor Condominiums across the street. He said it seems to be how compatibility is defined. He referenced Mr. Hall’s previous comment that we do not plan projects based on a least common denominator. He said as the group got educated and better understood the plan, they determined how to speak with one voice. He said that not once have they heard the applicant say they compromised and they came into Planning with a project with 44 units. He said the only comment from the community that was turned into action had to do with trees in the landscape plan. He said no minutes were taken from a meeting of the applicant and Elm Street CARES but at that meeting it was stated that the project will be 44 units and they are lucky it is not more units. Mr. Marolda said Windsor Condominiums is at one end of the spectrum, but they would rather have the applicant look at Beachwood Condos as an example and the standard should be somewhere in the middle. He said they have tried to be reasonable as they support affordable housing, but they thought a better plan would be to remove the second floor, which would reduce the units and reduce needed parking. That would still be 120 percent density, but the applicant said it is not good enough. Elms Street CARES encourages the Board to look at the neighborhood in its totality. He said if you look at area developments, there is more green space for the community. The Planning Board has two prior letters from the group on the record and Remonstrance E was submitted and dated January 10, 2023 containing comments concerning the Pimentel Consulting report dated November 21, 2022. He quoted page 168 of the Westerly Comprehensive Plan that “planning all residential projects (should be) with the intent of preserving the character of existing neighborhoods.” He said approving this will only serve to diminish the neighborhood. Mr. Marolda referenced his professional credentials and his resume, which was attached to a previous December remonstrance. He read the discrepancies shown on page three of Remonstrance E between the Pimentel Consulting Report and the accurate numbers as discovered for the Elms Assisted Living buildings and their units and density. He said the comparison of the project to the Elms’ units is not justified. Mr. Marolda referenced page 4 with notes on page 19 of the report. He said in his own conclusion the report confirms what Elm Street CARES was expressing that the density is too intense for the area.

Eleanor Derdeita, of 6 George Street, said the reason some tall buildings look beautiful is because of the roof line and the architecture. She provided further comments on the importance of aesthetics in the neighborhood.

Tom Brielmann, of 43 School Street, submitted his comments, which were marked Remonstrance F. He shared his professional background as a pilot. He said he is not fond of the building proposed and it seems comparable to an inn. He thinks the building could be made right and it needs to look like individual homes, have more class, and improve the area. He has concerns about the impervious surface area of the project, the density, and the lack of a play area for children. The ARB opinion in the record stated that pedestrian and vehicular access should be better planned, and sidewalk connections should be moved. Mr. Brielmann said he saw that some sidewalks were added, but not between the buildings and he wonders about how people will move into the building as designed because you cannot get a moving truck to the front door without impeding traffic. He regrets not speaking against the large ambulance corps building on Chestnut Street and he does not want to see this happen again.

Eliza Eichorn, of 38 George Street, thanked the Board for suggesting development that is LMI. She expressed concern about existing water accumulation near the property and wonders how the plan will address this and if it accommodates the conditions. She said the project plans on page 20 say the density is “entirely appropriate” for the area, but she thinks they should aim for higher than that standard. She said the population for this development is not an assisted living demographic so it should not be correlated with the Elms as it is in the consultant report. She also suggested the roof line could be redesigned and green space could also be on the roof, which would be more interesting. She thanked Ms. Letendre for answering emails because it is not easy to be a young person staying involved in community issues.

Tara Whalen, of 44 Elm Street, and the owner of 42 Elm Street, said there were comments on a prior project being in the woods, but this project is in the heart of a historic area. She asked if a letter from the Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission (RIHPHC) is required for the project. Ms. Letendre said that will occur between the Master and Preliminary Plan phases. Ms. Whalen commented that the project is supposed to be doing good, but we are looking at 11 out of 44 units being LMI. She referenced the conceptual design and noted that no substantial change has been made. She said the project creates more harm than good and she does not think the numbers justify the large and dense project and the risk of harm.

Atty. Nardone said he did not hear anything tonight that surprised him, and he understands the concerns of the neighbors. He said they are still in the beginning of the project in the conceptual stage. He reiterated that their planning professional Ed Pimentel and traffic engineer Paul Bannon will be present to testify to their reports on January 24. He said there have been no preliminary discussions with RIHPHC. Ms. Letendre said that initial discussion must come from Town staff. She added that staff will make recommendations for stormwater approval and what needs to happen as far as possible underground culverts. She said comments will be made on the traffic report as well, but she will wait for Mr. Bannon’s comments before she makes any final recommendations. She said any additional information for the 24th must be submitted by January 17. Mr. Hopkins urged the applicant to submit documents as soon as possible so the Board has time to process the information. He requested the work to determine the cost analysis between adding to the existing building or creating new building space. Mr. Constantine requested to know the financial effect of reducing density by 50 percent.

Mr. Constantine made a motion to continue the public hearing to the January 24, 2023 Planning Board meeting recognizing that the applicant has consented to an extension to render a decision by February 21, 2023. Mr. Hall seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

3. 2023 Special Meetings Calendar

 

Amendment to the Special Meetings Calendar to correct a mistake for the May 2nd meeting.

 

Mr. Hall made a motion to accept the Special Meetings Calendar as corrected and submitted. Mr. O’Neil seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.  

 

 

F. NEW BUSINESS

 

1. 2022-ATC-05: 16 Post Road Ministorage – Major Land Development - Master Plan (16 Post Road | Assessor’s Map 99, Lot 3A) Review, discussion, and possible action and/or continuation to a future meeting by the Planning Board on a proposed ministorage facility at 16 Post Road.  This application is associated with a request to Town Council for a zone change from Highway Commercial (HC) to General Commercial (GC) and amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to define parking requirements for mini storage.

 

            This item was continued to January 24, 2023. See Changes to the Agenda.

 

G. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

 

1.       Administrative Actions

 

There was no report.

 

H. ASSISTANT SOLICTOR FOR PLANNING AND ZONING’S REPORT

 

There was no report.

I. CONFIRMATION OF QUOROM FOR NEXT REGULAR MEETING

 

1. January 24, 2023 Regular Meeting at 6:00 p.m. Members of the Planning Board are asked to notify the Administrative Officer if they will not be present at the next regular meeting. The following topics are anticipated to be discussed (pending completeness review):

 

·         50 Wells Street Medical Offices

 

·         Cozi LLC Commercial Development (92-100 Granite Street)

 

J. ADJOURNMENT –

Mr. Constantine made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Delisio seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by unanimous vote with no abstentions.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Stephanie J. LaSota

Minute Taker

 

 

Approved by vote of the Board on February 21, 2023